In this day and age. Fair enough five hundred years ago people could be excused for believing that Royals were appointed by God and anointed by the Church and had blue blood and so on. But now ?
I think they represent stability. Of being above the politics of the moment. And that's a good thing. Whether a country wants to pay for maintaining a royal family...well I guess that's up to the particular country.
Edit: I'm referring to Constitutional Monarchies, not Absolute Monarchies like Saudi Arabia.
It's not a pretense, these titles exist and people are born into them.
If you're anti-royalist fine, but find a better argument than "pretense".
There is no such thing as a "Royal" person. People are just people. Therefore it is a pretence.
You are correct, they are just people, but I think they represent traditions that are important to some people. The Queen of England is old school and a lot of the victorian traditions remain a part of her court. Charles is somewhere in between her and what the newer generation of royals are. With the exception of William and Kate, most of them don't want titles for their children and attempt for them to have more normal lives.
Actually, in countries where the existence of a monarch and a royal family is encoded into the law, there really are "royal persons" by law.
Of course, such persons aren't any better than anyone else, sometimes it's quite the opposite. But they're given royal status by law, then royal they are.
It's fun having Kings, Queens, Princes, and Princesses being the official representatives of your nation, I guess.
shareI guess because it makes the people who believe in royals feel more cultured than countries that have plain ol' presidents and prime ministers.
shareBecause some people truly are a royal pain in the ass!
share